How expensive do you think a Turbo Tank would be if Hasbro released it? And hasn't it been said that Hasbro was planning on releasing it and had an unfinished sculpt? Now that the AT-TE's coming, everyone's gonna want this, just watch.

Instead of it being a toy, I contend with what I've been proposing for sometime now that it be a toy chest instead. Now with two cockpits for drivers/gunners and a detachable "crow's nest" on the top. (To make it easy to put toys inThis would fill the desire for the vehicle to a point and also have the added bonus of being useful as a storage unit for toys for kids. AND it could still have wheels to make it easy to move about with toys inside.

In this instance the rolling toy chest could be done affordable as there wouldn't be anywhere near as much tooling for this as there was for the AT-TE.

We're not talking about complete accuracy here either with the toy chest Turbo Tank. But it can be BIG. No electronics, no lights. Limited moving parts. That would help keep costs down.The toy chest idea has some merit as it's functional as well as a "toy" to a small degree.

-Sal

Logged

I'm just a humble collector trying to make his way through the universe...of toy aisles."We are strong. We are resilient. We are American." - President Barack Obama, State of the Union Address 2010

I could see them doing a Turbo Tank for around $100.00 too, if the AT-TE does well. They'd just need to keep the size of it down to make it comparable to the AT-TE. Anything much bigger than that would just be too big for most people to even find room for (or afford).

That picture's not entirely accurate... It's going off measurements listed that are completely wrong for some of the vehicle's heights. I can tell just to look at the AT-ST/AT-AT that the AT-AT is wrong, and is going by the inaccurate 15 meter height, where the films show it to be at least 20 meters, a pretty substantial difference. I believe the Incredible Cross Sections lists the AT-AT at its appropriate height (like 22.4m).

Not sure on the Juggernaught... Depending on what source you go by, it varies. The AT-AT and Juggernaught would be pretty close in height (sans crow's nest on the Jug) I believe though.

Look at the AT-ST and AT-AT, then imagine the scene with the AT-ST in ESB, and imagine how small that was compared to the legs of an AT-AT. That picture doesn't jive unfortunately.

The Sandcrawler is pretty huge though, and actually would come comparably close to the size of an AT-AT... I've seen scale models of both (same scale) done and they're quite similar in height, but not width.

Exactly Mike, I hadn't even looked at that closely... WAY too big. Hell, two Wookiee's are on the "drive wheel" portion in the center planting the bomb, and they practically take up 3/4 of the wheel's overall size, and Wookiee's are big, but not that big... That chart's all over the place and pretty off in general. The tank droid's pretty small overall, so yeah, that's just not a good gauge.

I think there's a couple types of juggernaughts listed (not sure why, probably covering up the "Juggernaught/Turbo Tank" screw-up in naming), but regardless, there's other vehicles there that just aren't right regardless of what texts say. Film examination shows AT-AT's were intended to be a LOT bigger, and that even carried over between films so it was pretty intentional.

Snail/Tank Droid must have a big brother if that thing is "accurate", haha.